Someone posted a great question for conversation yesterday on my thoughts page…
Is Ghandi in Heaven? (Now, for the sake of this conversation, it will be assumed that there is a heaven and a hell. The person asking was coming from a Christian perspective which you don’t necessarily have to agree with.)
What do you think? Do great moral figures like Ghandi enter heaven or is he in hell? Can we really know? Is there a definitely line and criterion for entrance?
May the conversation begin…(Please, don’t do this in the spirit of arguing or dogma.)
This post is tagged Eternal Life, Ghandi, Heaven, Hell
11 Comments
Probably one of the toughest questions to answer. I personally think that Ghandi more then anyone embodied what Christ was about. I think for me, that Ghandi is in heaven because of the life that he lived and the core values of his belief system: that all people are worth something.
I know that this argument can easily turn dogmatic and even for me its very tempting to say “well the bible says this” or “christian truths say this” but I think that would only give an answer on a superficial level. One must consider the actions of a person more then a confessions I think…
Who really knows though… great question to ponder about and to think about our own personal faith and what it means to live it out.
Thanks for posing a challenging question, Charles. I’ve been reading a lot of Gandhi lately, starting with a compilation called “Gandhi on Christianity.” I highly recommend it.
Gandhi knew Jesus’ teachings well and embodied them better than most anyone. He said that the Sermon on the Mount was one of the greatest sources of truth in the world. But he held to his Hindu faith, saying that although he appreciated Jesus deeply, he found more truth and solace in the Baghavad Gita.
One of the most challenging passages I read in that book recounted a time when a Christian missionary came to Gandhi and asked him what he thought of the missionary’s evangelical work in India. Gandhi pulled no punches. He said that he’d rather the missionary just live the way Jesus lived, loving people and teaching them to love, rather than proselytizing.
He went on to level a challenge that has stuck with me ever since. Gandhi looked at the Christian missionary and said, in paraphrase — I know all about your Jesus; I respect him and encourage you to live more like him. But you come here to my country, knowing close to nothing about my faith, and you have the audacity to tell me that I am wrong, and you are right, and unless I give up everything I’ve known and follow you way, I will be eternally punished.
I don’t know much about Heaven or Hell, but I know that this is a stinging challenge to a church entering a globalized age. Thoughts?
If Gandhi is in heaven, there is no heaven.
Hmmm…if we can define heaven as a place where God (God the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit) reigns or dwells then I guess it all depends if Ghandi worshiped God (God the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit).
If he did then he’s probably in heaven, if he didn’t I doubt he would want to be in a place where all they do is worship God.
Just my thoughts.
I think it was Ghandi who once said I love their Jesus, but I hate his followers. And much like the documentary, “Lord, Save Us From Your Followers,” it’s a challenging statement that forces those who follow Jesus to look very hard at how they may give the wrong impression of the very teacher they follow.
This includes the, as some would say, the overly closed-minded Christian view of heaven and hell.
And on that end, given that the Hindu leader adhered to a lot, if not, all of Jesus’ teachings, it’s hard to step out and say the man is in hell, especially, when the Hindu religion doesn’t necessarily believe hell exist. It’s a matter of heaven or reincarnation for them.
I don’t think Ghandi ever rejected Jesus and the basic understanding of the Christian concept of heaven and hell is, one’s destination is determined by whether or not they reject Jesus. For the sake of this conversation, I think we all need to come to an agreement as to which world religious view of heaven and hell we’ll use as the standard for entry. Are we going to use the Christian standard? The Muslim standard? The Mormon standard?
It’s a hard blog to comment on when there are many religious views of the final destination.
I do think there is one thing we can take from Ghandi’s life. Jesus was all about teaching on the importance of living in the now as it relates to our relationships with God and with others. On rare occasions did Jesus talk about the future. He mainly taught about focusing on today and not worrying about tomorrow. Ghandi definitely lived in the now and the now, for him, was respecting human life and serving humanity.
Thanks for your comments everyone! Very insightful
Dan, from a Christian perspective, is living out Christian core values enough for “salvation”? Where does grace fit into this conversation? Love to hear your thoughts about eternal life as an undeserved gift. I appreciate your attempt in moving beyond superficial answers.
James, thanks for giving us some context for Ghandi’s thoughts about Christ. I really appreciate your openness and willingness to be formed by people like Ghandi. I enjoyed reading about Ghandi’s response to the missionary…so honest and upfront…refreshing!
I think you are on to something when you infer the global and pluralistic nature of our current world. I do think that Christians ought to keep this mind while interacting with those not coming from the same epistemological or ontological perspective.
Nolan, you’re right…we need to clarify terms.
Derrick, good film BTW…:) You hit a related conversation about Christian perspectives of determinism, especially as it relates to one’s place in eternity. BTW, do you have a view? Just curious. I love the way you honestly articulate the complexity of a multi-religious conversation. I’m with you…Ghandi definitely models several great things for us (maybe, a whole other blog conversation).
Thanks again everyone for your input…appreciate your contribution.
Just want to bring up a few texts that have challenged my view of heaven/hell and would be interested in getting comments on them.
Rom 2:13-15
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
This one seems to strongly link doing what God requires with knowing him, and also seems to hint at the fact that their obedience to God’s law shows that they truly are worshiping him–even if they don’t know his name or all of his requirements. They’ve got God’s law on their hearts–a common grace–and they obey it. Is this enough for salvation? Paul says they become a law unto themselves and that their thoughts are defending them! Paul says it is those who OBEY the law who are declared righteous. We are righteous in Christ by virtue of the fact that he has fulfilled the law in us–not that he abolished it. Is the Gentile’s obedience to the law (generally–obviously they aren’t sinless) enough for salvation?
Rom 10:10-14
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile– the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear
This passage strongly links CONFESSION with salvation. They must call on him and trust in him. How can they not call on and trust in the one who they do not know? There seems to be SOME link between knowledge and salvation. But where is that line? How much must we know about God in order to be assured that we’re truly worshiping the true God and not some idol we’ve made in our own image?
Luke 12:47-48
47 “That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.
48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Jesus here seems to say that there will be a sliding scale of judgment–more for those who know more and less for those who know less. Is it possible that whose who know less about God (say secluded tribes) may still be granted salvation for their response–limited though it is?
I Jn 2:4-6
4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him:
6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Again there is a strong link between OBEDIENCE and salvation. It’s not that we know him, know theology, etc.–it is the degree to which we respond to said items. Obviously these items are important for they open up further opportunities for us to submit to the Lord in spirit and in truth, but they can also result in further judgment if we choose not to respond in the proper way (see above passage).
I Jn 3:10-11
10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
11 This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another.
Again–obedience and salvation. Christ frequently identified the core of his teaching with love (Matt. 22:37-40; Jn 15:17). It is as we embody and live out this love that we can be assured that we’re truly following all of Christ’s teaching. Now, to be fair, contextually the love spoken of here is love for one another–for those who are also in the body of Christ. That may not sound PC, but generally that is the love that is in mind (1 Pt 1:22; Jn 13:34-35; Rom 13:8; etc). The context of this particular passage shows this is the love John has in mind, for Paul uses the word “brothers” in verse 13 again to denote those he is writing to–the body of Christ. Obviously we have a call to love those outside the church–the parable of the Good Samaritan definitely shows this. I am merely trying to be fair contextually–the love spoken of in these passages is primarily brotherly love. I think this is a huge indictment against many so-called Christian revolutionaries who wish to love the world while abandoning the church. I assert that religious church-goers, Republicans, etc. are the new “untouchable” in America. It’s easy to love the poor and homeless–it’s a lot tougher to love those who we have traditionally painted as Pharisees and hypocrites. Anyways, back to the point–it is as we live our lives in love (especially for Christian brothers/sisters) that we are assured that we are following Christ’s teaching.
Acts 14:15-17
15 “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.
16 In the past, he let all nations go their own way.
17 Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.”
Here Paul seems to say that there is common revelation in nature–God has revealed himself to all through 1) Provision, and 2) Joy in our hearts. God has made everything and our very existence and the enjoyment of nature should clearly show that there is some God out there somewhere. Obviously we can not logically deduce that the Christian God is the true God from this basic revelation–but we can know that there is at least some God who is benevolent. The question here is: is this knowledge sufficient for salvation? I am inclined to say “yes” in light of Luke 12–if this knowledge leads to a general worship of this deity that brings hearts closer towards love.
Matt 7:26
26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
Putting Christ’s words into practice is what is emphasized. Why is this important? Many know Christ’s words but don’t put them into practice–others put them into practice without knowing they’re Christ’s words. Which is justified? I think the latter.
Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
This is one of the tough ones. Belief and baptism are commanded–we must believe in Christ and publicly be baptized as an expression of our commitment to him as Lord. Did Ghandi follow Christ as Lord? I don’t know–it would seem not. He definitely wasn’t baptized as a sign of this commitment. But he did admire and seek to follow Christ’s teachings of love, which definitely counts for something! Enough for salvation? That’s a toughie as some of the above texts seem to think so, but this text doesn’t. I think there’s a solution, but that’ll make this post even longer and I’d like to hear feedback first.
John 14:24
24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Seems to say that those who obey Christ’s teachings (read: primarily love) love him. This is not strictly logical as this passage says (not a)=(not b), and does not say b=a. But drawing on the above passages, it still seems to be a biblical theme. Here’s the problem: while Christ’s teachings are primarily love-centered, there are also many other teachings of his–the denial of which may constitute denial of Christ. Remember how many times Christ taught a hard teaching (e.g. you must drink my blood to follow me), people rejected this teaching, and he said that they rejected him? I struggle as to whether or not follow the MAIN command–love–is sufficient enough to bring salvation in the absence of obedience to his other commands.
Matt 21:28-32
28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
Again, it’s the one who does it–not the one who says they’ll do it–that is justified. It’s the action, not the words. This may seem simple on the surface, but this passage is extremely profound. Why? Because we tend to judge the outside but God sees the inside. We see people who confess Christ–what we don’t see (unless we’re close to them) is that they then don’t follow through. We see people who don’t outwardly confess Christ, but what we often don’t see is that their actions show that they’re truly following Christ.
There seems to be two things required of Christians–1) submission of lordship to Christ as our complete leader, and 2) a living out of his commands as embodied by love. And those who follow the latter seem to be showing, by their actions, their completion of the former–even if they don’t quite know who Christ is. We can say we are submitted to his lordship without following his laws of love, but we can’t follow his laws of love without showing that our hearts are in line with his teaching in some way. Obviously we may not know him to the depth that is desired, but there’s something in the changed way we live that seems to show that we’re following Christ more than we let on. What degree of obedience is required? What degree of knowledge? Does obedience to the main law of love allow flexibility in obedience to the other areas? What do you guys think?
First off–sorry that was so long.
But it’s a complex topic, and I hate superficial comments.
Second–I didn’t post where I landed.
Part of that was intentional as I want to receive feedback on the Scriptures first. But for the sake of reference–I land on either side depending on what day it is. =D Some days I see that ultimate dependence on Christ and submission to his lordship and dependence on his grace is required. We are depraved in some way–we try to win God’s love and do the right thing but we often fail. And we can’t do it on our own! There’s something truly effective that happens when Christ comes in our hearts–it’s not merely an embracing of different ideas or theology, but a change in our hearts that allows us to live according to God’s commands more so than we did before.
On another day, I view fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law is something that can be done more-or-less by those who have been touched by God in some way even though they haven’t quite grasped all of the truths of the Gospel. They recognize their brokenness and the foolishness of the world around them, and they choose to live by love–one of the ultimate goals God is moving us towards in our walk towards Christ-likeness. These people are fulfilling the law in some way, but they still fall far short–for we are not perfect and the law requires perfection. So in this sense they are condemned and truly need a Savior to save them!
But Scripture seems to teach both! It seems to present the idea that we are completely helpless without a Savior, but it also seems to teach that, you know what, this following God thing isn’t really that hard–just stop being stupid and start loving people. You don’t need some huge crazy conversion in your heart–God has revealed himself through nature and the basic principles of this world, and your very conscience should show you this!
Which is true? Do we need a Savior to save us from ourselves, or in some sense can we respond to God’s revelation and live according to Christ’s teachings without even knowing who Christ is? I think both are true, but the explanation is even longer than the original post, and I’m more interested in hearing responses.
So this is where I stand–maybe. =D Ghandi obviously lived the law of love and according to Romans 2, and by his obedience he may have become a law unto himself–not fully understanding the law of God, yet living by it anyway. Yet he did not submit to Christ as Lord and Savior–there still seems to be within his thinking the idea that he can do it himself simply by trying harder. In some sense this is true, but in some sense it is also false. Yet he may have known less, and will be judged less severely–possibly making into heaven by virtue of his obedience to what he did know, and his proper response of obedience to the law of love. Do I want Ghandi to be in heaven? Absolutely! It does not serve me at all for one person to be in hell–I get no joy out of it. But I do think it’s important to also wrestle with all the truth in Scripture–even if it’s uncomfortable. In the end, I truly, truly hope to see Ghandi up there–assuming I even get there!
If Ghandi accepted Christ, and it sounds like he did, then he would be in heaven (only God truly knows). He was right about some Christians, not all , we are not necessarily what we are supposed to be, no one’s perfect not even Ghandi (only Christ), but we are accepted all the same. There is something very special about the gift God has offered to us. It is not anything we did or can do, other than believing and receiving the gift. Ghandi might have been ignorant to the fullness of our faith and this is why he said what he said about Christians in general.
Unfortunately when we generalize, it tells more about the character generalizing than anything else. Is it possible we Christians fall into a sort of doctrinal idolatry when we start religious turf wars. Sounds like Ghandi might have been struggling with doctrinal idolatry himself. This is something to pray about. I wonder what Jesus would have said to Ghandi maybe something like, “don’t forget to open your gift.”
I think James Pearson’s comments summed up Ghandi’s opinion of Christ and Christianity. Thanks, James, for your detailed layout of your readings. I honestly don’t know much about Ghandi except that he was a champion of world peace and a terrific humanitarian. However, if he understood and admired the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, yet still held deeply to his Hindu religion, I don’t see where the argument lies. Even if we take Christ out of the picture and we look at the Mosaic tradition, “You shall have no other gods before me,” he is in violation of Yahweh’s law (and what Jesus called the Greatest Commandment.) Now, are Christians saved by the law? No, but rather by faith in the one who fulfilled the law–Jesus. We believe in him and confess him as Lord. We don’t merely admire him and put him up there on our “good person teacher guy” list. So, given the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven or hell, (and if James Pearsons comments about Ghandi’s beliefs are true) I would say “no”, he did not make it because he knowingly chose another system of belief over the salvation that was presented to him through Jesus Christ.
In response to Derrick’s comments about reincarnation or the Muslim or even Mormon concepts of heaven…somebody has to be right. One thing about truth is that it is absolute, not relative. If you interview 3 witnesses to a crime scene, they may all slightly be off, but a thread of truth will run through all 3. In the religious world, I have a hard time thinking that if a Hindu dies he is reincarnated all the while a Christian dies and he goes to heaven. Somebody has to be right!
Now, what do Christians have to learn from these discussions? First of all, we aren’t going to make any headway in converting non-believers by attacking their religious beliefs. Also, people will not understand the gospel of Christ through sheer humanitarianism. The gospel must be preached along with good deeds that meet the physical needs of people. Jesus almost always met physical needs before he met spiritual ones in people.
In the parable of the sheep and the goats Jesus chastises those who cried Lord yet did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned. Those who did these things, he said, did them for him. If what Jesus said is true (and I tend to beleive pretty much what he says) then those who are self-less and serve others out of love and with no expectation of reward (like Heaven) are truly serving him.
Then I am reminded of what CS Lewis (no biblical slouch) once said in an essay found in Mere Christianity. He was talking about saved vs unsaved people and how can we tell who they are (although he was using the terms Christian and non-Christian). He believed that there were people, probably very many, of other religions who were closer to Jesus than many Christians, even though they may not know his name. That they, either consciously or not, were moving away from the any false aspects of their religion while being attracted to those aspects most like Christ. I think that this could also describe a great many people who are already “Christian” yet are very far off the path, even while being faithful to current doctrine and dogma.
Incoming Links
Leave a Reply